Reported / Citable
Background
Michael Adrian Penafiel Bustamante, an Ecuadorian citizen, applied for admission at the Calexico, California, port of entry in October 2022. Immigration authorities issued him a notice to appear and released him on parole. ICE re-detained him at a scheduled check-in on April 3, 2026. The parties did not dispute that he had no criminal history.
An immigration judge ordered Penafiel Bustamante removed on June 30, 2026, and he appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals. While that appeal remained pending, he stayed in custody for more than six months without an individualized bond hearing. He sought habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging, among other things, his continued detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b).
The Court’s Holding
The court granted the habeas petition, denied the government’s summary-judgment motion, and ordered Penafiel Bustamante released by October 20, 2026. It held that his continued civil immigration detention without an individualized determination violated procedural due process under the Fifth Amendment.
Judge Kazen concluded that Penafiel Bustamante had a protected liberty interest based on his residence in the United States since 2022 and his prior releases on parole. His more than six months of detention, absence of criminal history, and lack of any hearing on danger or flight risk made the procedures constitutionally inadequate. The court declined to reach his other claims and ordered release, rather than a bond hearing, because it found that a later hearing would not remedy the deprivation and that immigration authorities likely would not conduct one under their position on § 1225(b) detention.
Key Takeaways
- A noncitizen detained under § 1225(b) may bring an as-applied procedural due process challenge to mandatory detention.
- Prior parole or release, combined with established residence in the United States, can strengthen a protected liberty interest against continued detention without individualized procedures.
- For this petitioner, more than six months of civil detention without a hearing on flight risk or dangerousness required release, not merely a prospective bond hearing.
Why It Matters
The decision continues the Southern District of Texas’s view that the Fifth Circuit’s statutory ruling in Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi does not foreclose constitutional challenges to detention under § 1225(b). It also treats the Fifth Circuit’s unexplained stay order in the en banc Sosnava-Rodriguez litigation as nonbinding on the merits.
For immigration practitioners, the ruling provides support for habeas petitions alleging prolonged detention without an individualized hearing, particularly where a client was previously paroled or released, lacks criminal history, and has complied with release conditions.